Nadine Dorries abortion proposals

An interesting point and one which leads us down the dark road to opinion rather than fact.

Well, yeah. The question of what constitutes life is pretty complex, and as we can see we end up with one group saying we shouldn't abort anything after conception, and another group who you wouldn't be surprised to see defending abortion up to 36 months post partum.

You doubtless recall the pro-lifers who said that Terri Schiavo should be kept on life support indefinitely in spite of the prevailing medical advice being that her brain was all but non-functional and that she was essentially already dead. She was still moving and making noises, but it's a bit of a stretch to say she was alive. I guess that's a more tangible example of this sort of thing, given that you could actually see her.
 
Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic):
"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School):
"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception"

You realise, of course, that if you define life as beginning with conception that every pair of identical twins are, in fact, only one person, and every miscarriage is a loss of human life. And won't somebody thinking of the unemplanted embryos!

Invoking molecular biology to define when human life begins is utter equivocation. When we talk about the value of human life we're talking about things a lot more meaningful than mere respiration and metabolism. A view of the value of human life that equates a fetus with it's mother has no place for any of the things that actually make human life valuable - emotion, sentience, feelings, thought, rationality, relationships with others, creativity, art, love, hope, etc. It's a version of human value reduced to mere speciesism.

I care exactly nothing for a fetus, it has an inherent value of exactly zero. I give it no more thought than the thousands of insects that die upon the bonnet of my car every time I drive down the M6. I care less about it than I do about the pig that died to make me lunch. The only value that a fetus has, at all, is any attached to it by its mother. An actual person who can think, and feel and form relationships and care.

And it is this person - the one who is actually, demonstrably, conscious and feeling - that is the one you want to rob of that most basic of rights, the right of authority over her own body?
 
You realise, of course, that if you define life as beginning with conception that every pair of identical twins are, in fact, only one person, and every miscarriage is a loss of human life. And won't somebody thinking of the unemplanted embryos!

That is just being silly.


Invoking molecular biology to define when human life begins is utter equivocation. When we talk about the value of human life we're talking about things a lot more meaningful than mere respiration and metabolism. A view of the value of human life that equates a fetus with it's mother has no place for any of the things that actually make human life valuable - emotion, sentience, feelings, thought, rationality, relationships with others, creativity, art, love, hope, etc. It's a version of human value reduced to mere speciesism.
The thing is I view ALL human life as precious. When you start trying to assign value to a life based on the criteria you have suggested then you start making some life more valuable than others.

I care exactly nothing for a fetus, it has an inherent value of exactly zero. I give it no more thought than the thousands of insects that die upon the bonnet of my car every time I drive down the M6. I care less about it than I do about the pig that died to make me lunch. The only value that a fetus has, at all, is any attached to it by its mother. An actual person who can think, and feel and form relationships and care.

And it is this person - the one who is actually, demonstrably, conscious and feeling - that is the one you want to rob of that most basic of rights, the right of authority over her own body?

Surely as a civilised society we have a moral responsibility to protect those who are unable to protect themselves.

It has been established that we carry out abortions in this country on babies who are capable of surviving. How do you feel about that?
 
To be honest we are going off track here. I can provide experts that agree that life begins at conception - you can I'm sure provide experts to state the opposite.

But it is blatantly obvious that life doesn't begin at conception unless you consider every single natural miscarriage a dead child? The potential for life begins at conception. Where that potential becomes an actual human being is much, much harder to define. As I said, before you can do that, you need to define what makes a human being a human being.

This kind of situation is exactly why Mrs Dorries is correct to push for impartial advice. And I still can't see any reason why not to offer impartial advice to women on this topic.

But that isn't really what she is trying to do is she? She is using the same tactics used in the US to try and make abortion more difficult. This isn't about providing impartial advice this is about trying to make sure that any advice that can be given is slanted to a pro-life position.

Your statement that God is "the biggest abortionist out there" is just silly. At no point have I brought religion or any sort of belief in God into this discussion.

As I said, I was just putting it in pro-life terms. Whilst there are certianly atheist and agnostic pro-life people out there you have to admit that the vast majority in this country and running the pro-life movement itself are indeed religious. Nadine Dorries is religious and she is proposing this amendment.

If we step back and take that statement at face value it poses a question. Is God* directly responsible for everyone who lives or dies? If Mr Smith drops dead of a heart attack while running does that mean that God has killed him? If Mrs Jones gets pregnant and drinks and smokes like a navvy causing her to miscarry - do we attribute that to God's direct intervention?

If the pregnancy process is so flawed that up to 50% of babies die with no human intervention at all then yes, I think we can lay the blame at the feet of whoever designed the process. I know my wife didn't deliberately choose to miscarry.

*Let us assume for the purposes of your point that he does.

My actual assumption is that he doesn't exist, that handily gets around the every sperm is sacred mindview and you can get back to looking at the ethics and science around the subject.

Sorry I missed this.

Well, the right to life is pretty obvious. That right might not be enshrined in the law in this country but it doesn't alter the moral right that child has.

Moral right? What about the moral right of the mother not to be have to forced to undergo pregnancy? That is the end point of your pro-life stance after all, women will be forced to undergo pregnancy regardless of the circumstances.

As an aside what are you views on abortion when the mothers life may be at risk with a continued pregnancy? It is after all still killing a child.
 
if you think it is conception then God is the greatest abortionist known...
Such an offensive term to the creator of life.

The development of all the parts of an embryo begins at conception, when the ovum, or egg cell, of the woman is fertilized by a sperm cell of the man. New advances in technology have enabled scientists to observe the amazing changes that take place in the nucleus of this one-celled fertilized egg. The molecules making up the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) of the father and mother combine to create a human life that never existed before.


That original single cell begins the truly miraculous process of constructing a fully formed human. The nature of this “construction” project is determined by our genes, which are segments of DNA. These control virtually everything about us. They determine our height, facial features, eye and hair color, and thousands of other traits.


Afterward, as that original cell divides, the complete genetic “blueprint” is duplicated into every new cell. Amazingly, each of these is programmed to develop into whatever kind of cell is needed. This includes heart tissue, brain cells, bone, skin, and even transparent tissue for our eyes. The initial programming within the original cell for the development of a unique new person has understandably often been referred to as “a miracle.”


“The human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell age,” reported Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a celebrated molecular biologist. He concluded: “There can no longer be any doubt that each human being is totally unique from the very beginning of his or her life at fertilization.”


A five-week-old human embryo is not a mere piece of tissue—it has within it the foundation for all the organs of a grown person.


From the time of conception in the womb, the child is, not just another part of the mother’s tissue, but a separate person. Her body views it as a foreign object. It would be quickly rejected were it not for the “protected world” created in the mother’s womb. This new human life—separated from the mother by protective housing—is a person with a unique DNA fingerprint.


Some argue that a woman’s body spontaneously aborts many fertilized eggs because of abnormalities, so why shouldn’t a doctor be able to abort a pregnancy? Yet, there is a big difference between spontaneous death and deliberate homicide. In one South American country, 71 out of 1,000 children die within their first year. But just because so many die prematurely, would it be acceptable to kill a child under the age of one? Of course not!


Significantly, the Bible describes a human life as existing in the womb. The psalmist David wrote concerning God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:16) David does not simply say “an embryo” but “the embryo of ME,” thus accurately revealing that David’s life began when he was conceived, long before his birth. Under inspiration by God, David also revealed that at conception the development of his body parts was according to a plan, or detailed ‘written’ instructions, which made him the person he was.


Please note also that the Bible does not say that a woman conceives a piece of tissue. Instead, it states: “An able-bodied man has been conceived!” (Job 3:3) This too indicates that according to the Bible, a child exists as a person from the time of his conception.

When Does a Human Life Begin?


WE SHOW RESPECT FOR LIFE

126.jpg

  • by not taking the life of an unborn child



  • by giving up unclean habits



  • by rooting out of our heart any hatred for our fellowman
 
That is just being silly.

It's the inevitable consequence of the notion that life begins at conception. If you're not happy to face up to the silliness inherent

The thing is I view ALL human life as precious. When you start trying to assign value to a life based on the criteria you have suggested then you start making some life more valuable than others.

But you have no basis for that. If you don't think that human life is valuable because of something you can't justify placing value on it and no basis on which to answer any moral quandary relating to it.

And because your assertion is utterly arbitrary you have no basis on which to push your version that a fetus is a real human life over any other interpretation.

Surely as a civilised society we have a moral responsibility to protect those who are unable to protect themselves.

We do. A fetus is not a person, it does not have rights. It's mother is a person and her rights over her body need protection.

It has been established that we carry out abortions in this country on babies who are capable of surviving. How do you feel about that?

I give not a monkeys. Until it's born I care nothing for it.
 
But it is blatantly obvious that life doesn't begin at conception unless you consider every single natural miscarriage a dead child? The potential for life begins at conception. Where that potential becomes an actual human being is much, much harder to define. As I said, before you can do that, you need to define what makes a human being a human being.

My wife and I have been through miscarriage and as far as we are concerned we lost a child. We do believe that every miscarriage is the death of a child.

As I have pointed out on this thread already when we start trying to define things like what a human being is we get into the realms of opinion. I suspect ours will differ.


But that isn't really what she is trying to do is she? She is using the same tactics used in the US to try and make abortion more difficult. This isn't about providing impartial advice this is about trying to make sure that any advice that can be given is slanted to a pro-life position.

You are making assumptions here. If you can prove what Mrs Dorrie's intentions are then I am more than happy to discuss.

As I said, I was just putting it in pro-life terms. Whilst there are certianly atheist and agnostic pro-life people out there you have to admit that the vast majority in this country and running the pro-life movement itself are indeed religious. Nadine Dorries is religious and she is proposing this amendment.

Surely we can examine the issue at hand rather than trying to make assumptions of the beliefs held by the individuals concerned. Yes Mrs Dorries is a Christian, does that direct every decision she makes? Is she incapable of reaching a conclusion on her own?

If the pregnancy process is so flawed that up to 50% of babies die with no human intervention at all then yes, I think we can lay the blame at the feet of whoever designed the process. I know my wife didn't deliberately choose to miscarry.

Why does someone have to be to blame at all?

My actual assumption is that he doesn't exist, that handily gets around the every sperm is sacred mindview and you can get back to looking at the ethics and science around the subject.

Then your point is meaningless

Moral right? What about the moral right of the mother not to be have to forced to undergo pregnancy? That is the end point of your pro-life stance after all, women will be forced to undergo pregnancy regardless of the circumstances.

I certainly don't think it is an easy topic. I don't deny that a woman has a right to choose to become pregnant. I also think that the unborn child has the right to life. You have two parties both with valid rights - I simply believe that the right to life comes out on top.

As an aside what are you views on abortion when the mothers life may be at risk with a continued pregnancy? It is after all still killing a child.

I personally view abortion as a grave moral disorder. I don't believe it is right under any circumstances. If my own wife's life was at risk what would I do? I really don't know, it is a difficult position to be in. I believe that killing is wrong under any circumstance but if we were held by some psycho who wished to kill us both and I had the opportunity to kill him to escape and survive - would I do it? I don't know. If I did I certainly wouldn't think that circumstances made my killing of another person acceptable in any way.
 
Please note also that the Bible does not say that a woman conceives a piece of tissue. Instead, it states: “An able-bodied man has been conceived!” (Job 3:3)

Not in any translation that I can find...

Although I note that your links in your post point to watchtower.org, so I guess that answers that question.
 
In any case his post still doesn't tackle why so many unborn children are lost to miscarriage and so on...

It's kedge, he won't be able to address that point until he finds the page on watchtower that does. Not to mention arguing that every life is sacred using the watchtower considering their rather cavalier attitude when it comes to blood transfusions.

It's not a tricky one to argue around, as a Christian, if one were so inclined.

At the end of the day I have zero issue with someone believing whatever they like. My main issue comes when they start forcing that belief onto others. Believe abortion is wrong? Don't have one then. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't marry someone who is the same gender as you...
 
In any case his post still doesn't tackle why so many unborn children are lost to miscarriage and so on...

It's not a tricky one to argue around, as a Christian, if one were so inclined.

Is that aimed at me or Kedge?

If it is aimed at me (a) I only have one pair of hands and limited time. I have already posted 30 times on this thread. Cut me a little slack and (b) I am intentionally trying to discuss the points with people rationally without bringing religion into the mix.
 
At the end of the day I have zero issue with someone believing whatever they like. My main issue comes when they start forcing that belief onto others. Believe abortion is wrong? Don't have one then. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't marry someone who is the same gender as you...

With that sort of attitude we would still have slavery.
 
At the end of the day I have zero issue with someone believing whatever they like. My main issue comes when they start forcing that belief onto others. Believe abortion is wrong? Don't have one then. Don't believe in gay marriage? Don't marry someone who is the same gender as you...

Well, yeah... But then I'm a believer in the separation of church and state, outside of a willing theocracy, so there you go.
 
In any case his post still doesn't tackle why so many unborn children are lost to miscarriage and so on.
It can be for a number of reasons, i'm no medical expert but unforseen occurrences befall us all. Search for yourself and come to your conclusions as to why. We are imperfect.

Frequency and Causes of Miscarriage
hr.jpg


[SIZE=-1]"Studies indicate that 15 to 20 percent of all diagnosed pregnancies end in miscarriage," says The World Book Encyclopedia. "But the risk of miscarriage is highest during the first two weeks following conception (fertilization), a time at which most women do not even know they are pregnant." Another reference states that over "80 percent of miscarriages occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy," of which at least half are thought to be caused by defects in the chromosomes of the fetus. These defects are not the result of similar defects in the chromosomes of the mother or father.


Other causes of miscarriage may stem from the mother's health. Medical authorities point to hormonal and immune system disorders, infections, and abnormalities in the cervix or the uterus of the mother. Chronic diseases such as diabetes (if poorly controlled) and high blood pressure may also be factors.


According to experts, miscarriage is not necessarily caused by exercising, lifting heavy objects, or having sexual relations. It is unlikely that a fall, a minor blow, or a sudden fright will cause miscarriage. One reference says: "The fetus is unlikely to be harmed by an injury unless the injury is serious enough to threaten your own life." How well the design of the womb testifies to a wise and loving Creator!—Psalm 139:13, 14.


Watchtower New York


[/SIZE]Loss of Unborn
 
Back
Top Bottom